Raju Alias Raj Kumar vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 8087 P&H

CRM-M-32204-2022                                                                [ 1 ]

206
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-32204-2022
                                       Date of Decision: 29.07.2022

Raju alias Raj Kumar..........................................Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Haryana.................................................. Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
                      ...

Present:       Mr. V.B.Godara, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
                                     ...

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)

This is sixth petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.139 dated 25.04.2019 under Sections

392, 397 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station

Bhuna, District Fatehabad, Haryana.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and has

been falsely implicated in the case in hand on the allegations that he along

with the co-accused went to the shop of the complainant and after

threatening him with a fire arm, robbed him of Rs.7,000/-. Learned counsel

submits that since the investigation is complete in the case in hand and he

has now been in custody for almost 03 years having been arrested on

07.08.2019, his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. He also

submits that only 03 out of the 20 prosecution witnesses cited have been

examined. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb wherein the accused had

1 of 3

CRM-M-32204-2022 [ 2 ]

been extended the concession of bail on account of his long incarceration.

Learned counsel submits that since petitioner too has been behind bars for

almost 03 years, his case is covered by the observations made by the

Supreme Court in K.A.Najeeb's case (supra) that courts should ordinarily

be obligated to enlarge an accused on bail in case he has been incarcerated

since long. He further submits that the complainant while stepping into the

witness box did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared

hostile.

Per contra learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. He submits that the

petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents as he is involved in 35 other

criminal cases of similar nature. He further submits that the petitioner

committed the crime in question while he was on bail in the other criminal

cases which already stood registered against him. While drawing the

attention of this court to the list of other criminal cases registered against

him, he submits that out of the 35 cases, though he has been acquitted in

some cases, however he has also been convicted in 08 cases. Learned State

counsel further submits that no doubt the complainant did not support the

case of the prosecution during trial but it was for reasons but obvious and

his antecedents seemingly played a role in the complainant's turning hostile.

A prayer has been made for dismissal of the instant petition in the wake of

his antecedents and also the likelihood of the petitioner committing crimes

of similar nature.

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the relevant

material on record.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

2 of 3

CRM-M-32204-2022 [ 3 ]

he is indeed involved in as many as 36 cases, though he submits that he has

been falsely implicated. However, this court can not lose sight of the fact

that the crime in question was committed while he was on bail in other

cases and that he, prima facie, misused the concession of bail. The reliance

placed on K.A.Najeeb's case (supra) by the petitioner would not come to

his rescue because it is not disputed, rather very fairly admitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused therein was not involved

in any other case.

It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that his false implication in this as well as other cases found

support from the fact that he had been acquitted in 12 cases. However, when

he was pointedly asked whether the witnesses in those cases too had turned

hostile, he feigned ignorance about the same. Learned State counsel

however, on instructions, apprised that in some of those cases the witnesses

had indeed resiled.

In the facts and circumstances of the case as enumerated herein

above, particularly keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the

petitioner, this court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of bail as

there could be a likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and

tampering with remaining evidence in the instant case.

Dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made

hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits

of the case.

                                                 ( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
29.07.2022                                               JUDGE
rupi
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned                              Yes / No
       Whether Reportable:                                   Yes / No

                                  3 of 3